Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Min-Max Regret Task Allocation and Planning of Heterogeneous Multi-Robot System in Partially Known Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a regret-based branch-and-bound planning tree, E-PDT, solves min-max regret task allocation for heterogeneous robot teams under temporal logic in partially known environments, preserving completeness and scaling to th

desk verdict The E-PDT framework is a plausible practical planner with a nice scalability story, but the completeness and min-max regret optimality claims are not supported as written because Theorem 2 assumes exhaustive expansion while Algorithm 2 expands only the max-edge subtask. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13403 v1 pith:SIKCS2WB submitted 2026-07-15 cs.RO

Xinkai Liang , Huixuan Chan , Ying Liu , Yangxi Shi , Hao Fang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords min-maxregrettaskallocationheterogeneousmulti-robotsystemspartiallyknownenvironmentscLTLplanningdecisiontreeregret-basedbranch-and-boundtemporallogic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that task allocation for large heterogeneous robot teams under temporal logic specifications can be solved efficiently even when the environment is only partially known. It formulates the problem as min-max regret: choose a contingent policy whose worst-case extra cost over a hindsight-optimal plan is minimized, without assuming probability priors on resource locations. The proposed mechanism is an extended planning decision tree whose nodes carry the automaton state, cost, belief, and regret, and a branch-and-bound rule that prunes policies once their estimated regret hits the current best global regret. The paper argues this pruning is admissible because the estimated regret is a lower bound on the true regret, and reports experiments in which the planner handles thousands of robots in seconds while outperforming mixed-integer programming baselines.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Extended Planning Decision Tree (E-PDT), where each node stores a hybrid policy, a DFA state, predicted robot locations and times, a world belief, an accumulated cost, and a regret value. The identity that carries the argument is the estimated regret, Equation (3): for a policy, it takes the maximum over nodes of accumulated cost plus optimistic future cost-to-go minus the optimistic hindsight-optimal cost. Because both future terms are computed in an idealized world where every potential region contains the resource, the paper claims this estimate is a strict lower bound on true regret, making the branch-and-bound prune admissible.

What would settle it

Construct the smallest environment where a potential region is empty, compute the exact regret of every policy by enumerating all environmental instantiations, and run E-PDT on the same instance; if any pruned policy has true regret below the returned policy's regret, Lemma 1 fails and the pruning rule is inadmissible. A more targeted version: check whether H(N_d.O) is ever larger than the true remaining cost under the realized environment, because the lower-bound argument requires H to be an underestimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the extended planning decision tree algorithm solves Problem 1 — minimizing worst-case regret over all environmental instantiations consistent with the robot team's initial belief — for scLTL tasks expressed with Region-Binding Atomic Propositions (RbAPs). The supporting results are Theorem 1 (any returned plan is a feasible accepting run on the DFA), Theorem 2 (if a feasible plan exists and regret pruning is disabled, the exhaustive tree will find it), and Lemma 1 (the estimated regret in Equation (3) is a lower bound on the true regret, so regret-based pruning preserves completeness). The empirical claim is near-linear computation in the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the estimated regret in Equation (3) is always a lower bound on the true regret in Equation (2), so pruning a policy whose estimated regret reaches the current upper bound can never eliminate the optimal policy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Lemma 1 is correct, the regret-based pruning rule never discards the optimal policy, so the returned contingent policy tree is guaranteed to have regret no larger than the best complete plan found.
  • The framework enables offline generation of a contingent policy tree; online, robots execute one branch and the real observation selects the next precomputed branch, avoiding heavy replanning.
  • The reported scaling means formal-specification planning for thousands of heterogeneous robots is computationally feasible, a regime where MILP-based allocation fails.
  • The crossover-probability experiments indicate that regret-based planning becomes better than worst-case planning once potential regions are reasonably likely to contain resources, and this threshold drops as environments grow more complex.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's completeness theorem assumes the tree expands over all valid subtasks, while Algorithm 2 expands only the transition edge with the maximal set of atomic propositions; a full completeness guarantee would need either a proof that max-edge expansion preserves an optimal policy or a modified search that broadens expansion.
  • A direct falsification experiment within the paper's own machinery would instrument a small instance with exact regret computed by enumeration and check that no pruned policy has lower true regret than the returned policy; the paper does not report such a check.
  • Because the framework assumes a known static map topology with uncertain resource locations, a natural extension is coupling the regret-based tree with reactive replanning for dynamic or unknown environments, which the paper identifies as future work.
  • The RbAP representation could be reused beyond mobile robots: any task-allocation setting with unknown resource locations, such as sensor placement or logistics staging, can express its uncertainty as a set of region-bound atomic propositions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Extended Planning Decision Tree (E-PDT), a framework for task allocation and planning of heterogeneous multi-robot systems under syntactically co-safe LTL (scLTL) specifications in partially known environments. It introduces Region-Binding Atomic Propositions (RbAP) to encode uncertainty about resource locations directly in the automaton, formulates the problem as min-max regret optimization, and uses a regret-based branch-and-bound pruning strategy inside a planning decision tree. The authors claim formal feasibility, completeness, and min-max regret optimality, plus near-linear scalability with the number of robots and robot types. Numerical scaling experiments, simulation studies, and two physical experiments are reported to support the scalability and practical utility claims.

Significance. The problem addressed is important: scalable multi-robot planning under temporal logic constraints and environmental uncertainty, without assuming prior probability distributions, has clear practical value in disaster response and warehouse logistics. The paper has genuine strengths: RbAP is a clean abstraction that remains DFA-compatible; the contingent policy-tree output is appropriate for online execution; the numerical experiments cover substantially larger fleets than typical formal-methods papers; and the physical experiments demonstrate real-world applicability. If the formal optimality and completeness claims were correct, this would be a significant practical and theoretical advance. However, the central theoretical claims are not supported by the algorithm as written. The mismatch between Theorem 2's exhaustive-expansion assumption and Algorithm 2's greedy single-edge expansion is load-bearing, and the admissibility proof of the pruning bound has unresolved definitional ambiguities. Because the main contribution is framed as solving Problem 1 (min-max regret) with completeness guarantees, I cannot recommend acceptance in the current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V (Theorem 2) vs. §IV-B (Algorithm 2)] Theorem 2's proof explicitly assumes that treeExpansion 'systematically generates child nodes by considering all valid subtasks from the DFA.' Algorithm 2, however, initializes by selecting only the single transition edge with the maximal set of atomic propositions (Algorithm 2, line 2; Section IV-B). The search therefore never generates branches whose first DFA transition is not the maximal edge. The paper's own Table I confirms that traversing all transition edges (Methods 2 and 3) 'occasionally identifies alternative policies with lower theoretical regret' along branches with fewer atomic propositions. Since Theorem 2 does not prove that the maximal-edge choice preserves min-max regret optimality, the claimed solution to Problem 1 is unsupported. The formal claim must either be weakened to a heuristic statement, or the algorithm must enumerate all valid transitions; the latter would i
  2. [§IV-C and §V-A, Lemma 1] Lemma 1 is the sole support for admissibility of the pruning rule, but the proof does not pin down the definitions of H and opt. Section IV-C says H(Nd.O) is 'calculated strictly within Wopt, assuming the agent is simply directed to the nearest region containing the resource.' If H is the cost of a concrete nearest-region policy, it is generally an upper bound on the optimal optimistic cost-to-go, not an admissible lower bound; if it is meant to be an optimistic estimate, that property is asserted but not proved. Likewise, opt(Nd.O) is described as 'the minimum possible cost to satisfy the specification from initial given the current belief' — it is unclear whether this is computed from the initial state or from node Nd, and the two readings lead to different inequalities in the proof. Without a precise definition and proof that H is a lower bound on the optimal remaining cost for every
  3. [§V-A, Theorem 2 vs. Definition 11] There is a gap between the completeness theorem and the actual pruned algorithm. Theorem 2 explicitly assumes that the min-max pruning rule is disabled. Lemma 1 then claims that the pruning strategy preserves completeness, but its proof only addresses admissibility of the estimated-regret lower bound. It does not analyze Rule 2, which prunes nodes on repeated (automaton state, observation) with a smaller regret value; no dominance argument is provided to show that a smaller regret at an intermediate node implies dominance of all future completions. It also does not address the early-exit behavior of Rule 3, which aborts policy evaluation after a single violating observation. Admissibility of a lower bound is necessary but not sufficient to prove completeness when branches can be discarded before they are generated. Thus the formal claims for the algorithm with pruning are not established
minor comments (6)
  1. [Definition 1] The DFA definition writes S0 ∈ S and SF ∈ S, but these should be subsets of S (S0 ⊆ S, SF ⊆ S). The notation is inconsistent with the text describing them as sets.
  2. [§IV-B] There are two nearly identical paragraphs describing the two-level greedy allocation mechanism. One should be removed to avoid duplication.
  3. [Table III] The last row has a typo: 'Filed' should be 'Failed'.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The notation N ds(π) is used in (3) but not defined before the equation. Please define it explicitly.
  5. [§V-A, Theorem 2] The statement 'if the min-max pruning rule is disabled' conflicts with the later assertion that the BnB strategy preserves completeness. Please clarify which theorem applies to the pruned algorithm and which applies to the unpruned tree.
  6. [§V-B] The complexity analysis is careful to separate per-node cost from the number of visited nodes, but the abstract's 'near-linear scalability' should be qualified as being with respect to robots and types for a fixed environment and fixed scLTL formula. The worst-case N_visited remains exponential in the number of uncertain regions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained, though there are correctness gaps that are not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not contain a circular step under the stated criteria. The regret estimator in Eq. (3) is introduced as a heuristic approximation of Definition 9, and Lemma 1 attempts to prove admissibility by comparing against the optimistic instantiation W_opt. Defining H and opt within W_opt is a standard admissible-heuristic construction, not circularity: the proof explicitly states the inequalities Nd.Cost + H(Nd.O) <= Cost(pi, W_opt), opt(Nd.O) = min_{pi'} Cost(pi', W_opt), and then uses W_opt in E_{W_b} to bound the true regret. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the scalability claims are supported by complexity analysis plus runtime measurements rather than by fitting. The framework does build on prior PDT work, but these are published external foundations, not an unverified self-citation chain that forces the present conclusions. The more serious issues are correctness/completeness gaps rather than circularity: Theorem 2's proof assumes that treeExpansion 'systematically generates child nodes by considering all valid subtasks from the DFA,' whereas Algorithm 2 'selects the single transition edge associated with the maximal set of atomic propositions.' Table I also concedes that traversing all transition edges 'occasionally identifies alternative policies with lower theoretical regret.' These are internal inconsistencies or heuristic optimality gaps, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The algorithm has no fitted free parameters; all quantities are computed from problem data, and the experimental 'crossover probability' is a measured threshold, not a parameter. The central claim rests on the PKE domain assumptions, the unconstrained-communication assumption, and the ad hoc optimistic-resource assumption used for regret lower bounding.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Known environment topology, known potential resource types per region, and exactly one guaranteed region per resource type (Guaranteed Resource Anchor).
    Section III-A defines the PKE with these assumptions; if no guaranteed anchor exists, the exploration/exploitation strategy and regret definitions do not apply.
  • domain assumption Local observability and static resource distribution: visiting a region reveals its resources permanently and the world does not change.
    Section III-A; this guarantees finite belief updates and bounds tree depth.
  • domain assumption Unconstrained inter-robot communication when computing Cost and propagating observations.
    Section IV-A: 'Assuming unconstrained inter-robot communication, Cost is defined based on the observation result.'
  • ad hoc to paper Optimistic resource assumption Wopt: H and opt are computed in an idealized world where all currently potential resources are present.
    Section IV-C and Lemma 1; this is the crux of the lower-bound/pruning admissibility claim, and the paper's proof sketch is under-specified.
  • ad hoc to paper Maximal-transition-edge selection yields a complete and suboptimality-preserving search for the stated min-max regret problem.
    Algorithm 2's prose and Theorem 2's proof are inconsistent: the theorem assumes all subtasks are expanded, while the algorithm selects only the maximum edge and Table I tests this as Method 1.
invented entities (1)
  • Region-Binding Atomic Proposition (RbAP)
    purpose: Binds an atomic proposition to a label, resource set, region set, guaranteed region, and required robot set, enabling DFA-based progress monitoring under region-level resource uncertainty.
    A representational device, not a physical entity; it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper. Its validity is tied to the PKE assumptions in Section III-A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Min-Max Regret Task Allocation and Planning of Heterogeneous Multi-Robot System in Partially Known Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SIKCS2WB

@misc{pith2026260713403,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Min-Max Regret Task Allocation and Planning of Heterogeneous Multi-Robot System in Partially Known Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SIKCS2WB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13403}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient task allocation for large-scale Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Systems (HMRS) is critical, yet dealing with complex temporal logic tasks in partially known environment (PKE) remains a computational bottleneck. Existing approaches often struggle to balance exploring uncertain regions and exploiting known resources, while also suffering from exponential computational complexity. To address these issues, this paper presents a robust planning framework that simultaneously handles high-level logical constraints and environmental uncertainty without sacrificing scalability. We formulate the problem as a min-max regret optimization, proposing a Region-Binding Atomic Proposition (RbAP) to capture resource uncertainty within the automaton structure. To solve this, we propose the Extended Planning Decision Tree (E-PDT) equipped with a novel Regret-based Branch-and-Bound (BnB) strategy. Unlike traditional methods that rely on prior probabilities or worst-case analysis, our approach dynamically prunes suboptimal policies, effectively balancing the need for information gathering (exploration) and task completion (exploitation). Theoretical analysis confirms the feasibility and completeness of our approach. Extensive numerical and physical experiments demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves near-linear scalability with respect to the number of robots and types, significantly outperforming MILP-based baselines in both solution quality and computational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13403 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Automaton figure of example scLTL ϕ = ap1 ∧ ap2. hybrid policies: π1 = (Exploit ap1, Exploit ap2), π2 = (Exploit ap1, Explore ap2), π3 = (Explore ap1, Exploit ap2), and π4 = (Explore ap1, Explore ap2). Consider the hybrid policy π2 as an instance. For ap1, the planner allocates robot a1 to the guaranteed region r4 while simultaneously dispatching the surplus robot a2 to explore the potential region r1. Concurrently,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of E-PDT. The framework takes the PKE, scLTL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cost against potential regions probability with fixed gap. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cost against potential regions probability with fixed number of regions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cost against number of robot types. for the remaining sub-groups. A similar scenario occurs with the type II robot fleet. In contrast, the type III robots fail to discover resource C in the three regions visited during the first phase and thus continue the plan. The en…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The result of physical experiment 1. Solid boundaries denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The result of physical experiment 2. The notation used is the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    S. M. LaValle,Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2006

    2006

  2. [2]

    Integrated task and motion planning,

    C. R. Garrett, R. Chitnis, R. Holladay, B. Kim, T. Silver, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-P ´erez, “Integrated task and motion planning,”Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 265–293, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Formal specification and verification of autonomous robotic systems: A survey,

    M. Luckcuck, M. Farrell, L. A. Dennis, C. Dixon, and M. Fisher, “Formal specification and verification of autonomous robotic systems: A survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1–41, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Formal methods for control synthesis: An optimization perspective,

    C. Belta and S. Sadraddini, “Formal methods for control synthesis: An optimization perspective,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 115–140, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Symbolic planning and control of robot motion [grand chal- lenges of robotics],

    C. Belta, A. Bicchi, M. Egerstedt, E. Frazzoli, E. Klavins, and G. J. Pappas, “Symbolic planning and control of robot motion [grand chal- lenges of robotics],”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 61–70, 2007

    2007

  6. [6]

    Finite-horizon synthesis for probabilistic manipulation domains,

    M. Wells, Z. Kingston, M. Lahijanian, L. E. Kavraki, and M. Y . Vardi, “Finite-horizon synthesis for probabilistic manipulation domains,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6336–6342

    2021

  7. [7]

    Optimal control synthesis of markov decision processes for efficiency with surveillance tasks,

    Y . Chen, X. Yin, H. Ye, S. Li, and X. Yin, “Optimal control synthesis of markov decision processes for efficiency with surveillance tasks,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 3699–3704

    2024

  8. [8]

    Receding horizon temporal logic control in dynamic environments,

    A. Ulusoy and C. Belta, “Receding horizon temporal logic control in dynamic environments,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1593–1607, 2014

    2014

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Distributed motion coordination for multirobot systems under ltl specifications,

    P. Yu and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Distributed motion coordination for multirobot systems under ltl specifications,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1047–1062, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Task and motion coordination for heterogeneous multiagent systems with loosely coupled local tasks,

    M. Guo and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Task and motion coordination for heterogeneous multiagent systems with loosely coupled local tasks,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 797–808, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Simultaneous task allocation and planning for temporal logic goals in heterogeneous multi- robot systems,

    P. Schillinger, M. B ¨urger, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Simultaneous task allocation and planning for temporal logic goals in heterogeneous multi- robot systems,”The international journal of robotics research, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 818–838, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Temporal logic task allocation in hetero- geneous multirobot systems,

    X. Luo and M. M. Zavlanos, “Temporal logic task allocation in hetero- geneous multirobot systems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3602–3621, 2022. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 14

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fast decomposition of tempo- ral logic specifications for heterogeneous teams,

    K. Leahy, A. Jones, and C.-I. Vasile, “Fast decomposition of tempo- ral logic specifications for heterogeneous teams,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2297–2304, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Real-time reactive task allocation and planning of large heterogeneous multi-robot systems with temporal logic specifi- cations,

    Z. Chen and Z. Kan, “Real-time reactive task allocation and planning of large heterogeneous multi-robot systems with temporal logic specifi- cations,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 640–664, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Probabilistic planning with formal performance guarantees for mobile service robots,

    B. Lacerda, F. Faruq, D. Parker, and N. Hawes, “Probabilistic planning with formal performance guarantees for mobile service robots,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1098– 1123, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Probabilistic motion planning under temporal tasks and soft constraints,

    M. Guo and M. M. Zavlanos, “Probabilistic motion planning under temporal tasks and soft constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 4051–4066, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Optimal probabilistic motion planning with potential infeasible ltl constraints,

    M. Cai, S. Xiao, Z. Li, and Z. Kan, “Optimal probabilistic motion planning with potential infeasible ltl constraints,”IEEE transactions on automatic control, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 301–316, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    An analog of the minimax theorem for vector payoffs

    D. Blackwell, “An analog of the minimax theorem for vector payoffs.” 1956

    1956

  11. [19]

    No-regret path planning for temporal logic tasks in partially-known environments,

    J. Zhao, K. Zhu, M. Feng, S. Li, and X. Yin, “No-regret path planning for temporal logic tasks in partially-known environments,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, p. 02783649251315758, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Temporal logic motion planning in unknown environments,

    A. M. Ayala, S. B. Andersson, and C. Belta, “Temporal logic motion planning in unknown environments,” in2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2013, pp. 5279– 5284

    2013

  13. [21]

    Multi-agent plan reconfiguration under local ltl specifications,

    M. Guo and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Multi-agent plan reconfiguration under local ltl specifications,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 218–235, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Iterative temporal planning in uncertain environments with partial satisfaction guarantees,

    M. Lahijanian, M. R. Maly, D. Fried, L. E. Kavraki, H. Kress-Gazit, and M. Y . Vardi, “Iterative temporal planning in uncertain environments with partial satisfaction guarantees,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 583–599, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Reactive synthesis for finite tasks under resource constraints,

    K. He, M. Lahijanian, L. E. Kavraki, and M. Y . Vardi, “Reactive synthesis for finite tasks under resource constraints,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 5326–5332

    2017

  16. [24]

    Reactive temporal logic planning for multiple robots in unknown occupancy grid maps,

    Y . Kantaros, M. Malencia, and G. J. Pappas, “Reactive temporal logic planning for multiple robots in unknown occupancy grid maps,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.07912, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Reinforcement learning for temporal logic control synthesis with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees,

    M. Hasanbeig, Y . Kantaros, A. Abate, D. Kroening, G. J. Pappas, and I. Lee, “Reinforcement learning for temporal logic control synthesis with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees,” in2019 IEEE 58th conference on decision and control (CDC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 5338–5343

    2019

  18. [26]

    Control synthesis from linear temporal logic specifications using model-free reinforcement learning,

    A. K. Bozkurt, Y . Wang, M. M. Zavlanos, and M. Pajic, “Control synthesis from linear temporal logic specifications using model-free reinforcement learning,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 10 349–10 355

    2020

  19. [27]

    Learning-based probabilistic ltl motion planning with environment and motion uncertainties,

    M. Cai, H. Peng, Z. Li, and Z. Kan, “Learning-based probabilistic ltl motion planning with environment and motion uncertainties,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 2386–2392, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Overcoming exploration: Deep reinforcement learning for continuous control in cluttered en- vironments from temporal logic specifications,

    M. Cai, E. Aasi, C. Belta, and C.-I. Vasile, “Overcoming exploration: Deep reinforcement learning for continuous control in cluttered en- vironments from temporal logic specifications,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2158–2165, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    To explore or not to ex- plore: Regret-based ltl planning in partially-known environments,

    J. Zhao, K. Zhu, S. Li, and X. Yin, “To explore or not to ex- plore: Regret-based ltl planning in partially-known environments,”IFAC- PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 11 337–11 343, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Baier and J.-P

    C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen,Principles of model checking. MIT press, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Automated composition of motion primitives for multi-robot systems from safe ltl specifications,

    I. Saha, R. Ramaithitima, V . Kumar, G. J. Pappas, and S. A. Seshia, “Automated composition of motion primitives for multi-robot systems from safe ltl specifications,” in2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1525–1532

    2014

  24. [32]

    Multi-agent planning under local ltl specifications and event-based synchronization,

    J. Tumova and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Multi-agent planning under local ltl specifications and event-based synchronization,”Automatica, vol. 70, pp. 239–248, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Decomposition of finite ltl specifications for efficient multi-agent planning,

    P. Schillinger, M. B ¨urger, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Decomposition of finite ltl specifications for efficient multi-agent planning,” inDis- tributed Autonomous Robotic Systems: The 13th International Sympo- sium. Springer, 2018, pp. 253–267

    2018

  26. [34]

    Multi-agent task allocation using cross-entropy temporal logic optimization,

    C. Banks, S. Wilson, S. Coogan, and M. Egerstedt, “Multi-agent task allocation using cross-entropy temporal logic optimization,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 7712–7718

    2020

  27. [35]

    Sampling-based optimal control synthesis for multirobot systems under global temporal tasks,

    Y . Kantaros and M. M. Zavlanos, “Sampling-based optimal control synthesis for multirobot systems under global temporal tasks,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1916–1931, 2019

    1916

  28. [36]

    Stylus*: A temporal logic optimal control synthesis algorithm for large-scale multi-robot systems,

    ——, “Stylus*: A temporal logic optimal control synthesis algorithm for large-scale multi-robot systems,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 812–836, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    An abstraction-free method for multirobot temporal logic optimal control synthesis,

    X. Luo, Y . Kantaros, and M. M. Zavlanos, “An abstraction-free method for multirobot temporal logic optimal control synthesis,”IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1487–1507, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Hierarchical multi-robot strategies synthesis and optimization under individual and collaborative temporal logic specifications,

    R. Bai, R. Zheng, Y . Xu, M. Liu, and S. Zhang, “Hierarchical multi-robot strategies synthesis and optimization under individual and collaborative temporal logic specifications,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 153, p. 104085, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Fast and adaptive multi-agent planning under collaborative temporal logic tasks via poset products,

    Z. Liu, M. Guo, W. Bao, and Z. Li, “Fast and adaptive multi-agent planning under collaborative temporal logic tasks via poset products,” Research, vol. 7, p. 0337, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Fast temporal logic mission planning of multiple robots: A planning decision tree approach,

    Z. Chen, Z. Zhou, S. Wang, J. Li, and Z. Kan, “Fast temporal logic mission planning of multiple robots: A planning decision tree approach,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 6146–6153, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    A formal framework for reactive heterogeneous multirobot task allocation in uncertain semantic environments,

    L. Li, Z. Zhou, Z. Chen, H. Wang, Z. Kan, and J. Qin, “A formal framework for reactive heterogeneous multirobot task allocation in uncertain semantic environments,”IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2026

    2026

  34. [42]

    Environment-driven and llm-guided multi- robot task inference and allocation under temporal logic specifications,

    L. Li, Z. Chen, and Z. Kan, “Environment-driven and llm-guided multi- robot task inference and allocation under temporal logic specifications,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2026

    2026

  35. [43]

    Monitoring temporal properties of con- tinuous signals,

    O. Maler and D. Nickovic, “Monitoring temporal properties of con- tinuous signals,” inInternational symposium on formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems. Springer, 2004, pp. 152–166

    2004

  36. [44]

    A policy search method for temporal logic specified reinforcement learning tasks,

    X. Li, Y . Ma, and C. Belta, “A policy search method for temporal logic specified reinforcement learning tasks,” in2018 Annual American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 240–245

    2018

  37. [45]

    The benefits of relaxing punctuality,

    R. Alur, T. Feder, and T. A. Henzinger, “The benefits of relaxing punctuality,”Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 116–146, 1996

    1996

  38. [46]

    Time window temporal logic,

    C.-I. Vasile, D. Aksaray, and C. Belta, “Time window temporal logic,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 691, pp. 27–54, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Multirobot coordination with counting temporal logics,

    Y . E. Sahin, P. Nilsson, and N. Ozay, “Multirobot coordination with counting temporal logics,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1189–1206, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Multi-robot path planning for syntacti- cally co-safe ltl specifications,

    M. Kloetzer and C. Mahulea, “Multi-robot path planning for syntacti- cally co-safe ltl specifications,” in2016 13th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems (WODES). IEEE, 2016, pp. 452–458

    2016

  41. [49]

    Fast task allocation of hetero- geneous robots with temporal logic and inter-task constraints,

    L. Li, Z. Chen, H. Wang, and Z. Kan, “Fast task allocation of hetero- geneous robots with temporal logic and inter-task constraints,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4991–4998, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Task allocation of heterogeneous robots under temporal logic specifications with inter-task constraints and variable capabilities,

    ——, “Task allocation of heterogeneous robots under temporal logic specifications with inter-task constraints and variable capabilities,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    Fast motion planning in dynamic environments with extended predicate-based temporal logic,

    Z. Chen, M. Cai, Z. Zhou, L. Li, and Z. Kan, “Fast motion planning in dynamic environments with extended predicate-based temporal logic,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 5293–5307, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.